San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich was fined by NBA Commissioner David Stern, and some folks around the league think the fine was fair. / Steve Mitchell, USA TODAY Sports

by Sam Amick, USA TODAY Sports

by Sam Amick, USA TODAY Sports

The business argument is as open and shut as they come, if only because thriving companies just don't make a habit out of slicing away at their own bloodlines. A TNT game was marred because of Gregg Popovich's decision to send his four core San Antonio Spurs players home on Thursday rather than have them take on the reigning champion Miami Heat, and so it was that the economic model of the NBA's $5-billion business was unquestionably threatened.

But lest anyone think the league's basketball people don't see it that way, that the prevailing view in that camp is the sanctity of the game was forever compromised by NBA Commissioner David Stern's decision to fine San Antonio $250,000 for conduct unbecoming of the league, think again. Several front office executives contacted by USA TODAY Sports revealed plenty of agreement with Stern's decision, with numerous team officials indicating that - in a twist to what your parents always said: It's not what Popovich did that deserved discipline, but how he did it.

Popovich's choice to keep his decision quiet before sending Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Danny Green home rather than have them sit courtside in their suits was likely a major factor here. Perhaps that decision should have been communicated to the league in advance with the hopes of receiving approval.

One Eastern Conference general manager agreed with the premise that there is nothing wrong with resting players, but said it would have been better if the players had been at the game. Having them not even make the trip is what made this situation one that deserved a fine, said the GM, who spoke to USA TODAY Sports on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.

Coaches are an old-school lot, confident in their ways on matters of player rotation and rest and stubborn to succumb when those above them - be it owners or the commish himself - weigh in with an opinion about how the team should be run. Popovich, meanwhile, is as accomplished as they come, with four championships and a reputation as one of the brightest, most respected and revered in his profession.

But while no one is second-guessing him when it comes to basketball acumen, his blatant disregard for the ripple effect on the business front was either fearlessly calculated or naively implemented. Still, the question from some about where this could lead is a fair one.

As was the case when Stern vetoed the deal that would have sent Chris Paul from New Orleans to the Lakers in December, the inherent distrust in him that exists among some executives has caused some consternation about the boundaries of his influence. There are plenty of areas with unresolved issues as well, among them the seemingly-countless times that teams have rested players late in the season without consequence and the appearance of inconsistent discipline.

The Spurs' regular season finale in 2011-12 (a 107-100 win at Golden State) included not only the absence of Duncan, Parker and Ginobili but Popovich himself was intentionally gone as the team was coached by Mike Budenholzer. No discipline ensued.

The Lakers were fined twice for resting players leading into the playoffs during the Pat Riley era, but, like the practice of tanking, that is a relevant topic for another day - it generally goes unchecked.

Now, the commissioner has opened a can of worms for later in the year when teams rest players to get ready for the playoffs. The Spurs aren't the only team guilty of this practice.

The significant difference, of course, is that resting players in late November is far different than doing so in April as a means to make a long run in the playoffs. A second Eastern Conference general manager said he had no concerns about the slippery slope that so many have talked about, this notion that Stern now will interject his influence into the sort of game-management decisions that he has no right being involved in.

"This isn't a basketball decision," said the GM, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of issue's sensitivity. "This is a business decision. It's not fair. It's not fair to the people who tune in to watch that game on TV. It's not fair to the Miami fans who attended the game. You can't separate the business from the basketball side (in this equation)."